Background. The optimal management of idiopathic clubfoot has changed over three decades. Recently there has been an enthusiastic embracing of the Ponseti technique. The purpose of this 14-year comparative prospective longitudinal study was to directly assess the differences in results between these two treatment methods. Methods. Over the period of this study there were 52,514 births in the local population and all newborns with clubfoot were referred directly to the Pediatric Orthopedic Surgeon. Patient demographics, the Harrold & Walker Classification, and associated risk factors for clubfoot were collected prospectively and analyzed. If conservative treatment failed to correct the deformity adequately, a radical subtalar release (RSR) was undertaken (the primary outcome measure of the study). Results. There were 114 feet (80 patients): 64 feet treated ‘traditionally’ and 50 feet with the Ponseti technique. Idiopathic clubfoot was present in 76.25% of patients. Mean time to RSR was 33.3 and 44.1 weeks for the traditional and Ponseti groups respectively. In the traditional group 65.6% (CI: 53.4 to 76.1%) of feet underwent RSR surgery compared to 25.5% (CI: 15.8 to 38.3%) in the Ponseti group. When idiopathic clubfoot alone was analysed, these rates reduce to 56.5% (CI: 42.3 to 69.8%) and 15.8% (CI: 7.4 to 30.4%) respectively. The Relative Risk of requiring RSR in traditional compared to Ponseti groups was 2.58 (CI: 1.59 to 4.19) for all patients and 3.58 (CI: 1.65 to 7.78) for idiopathic clubfoot. Conclusions. Introduction of the Ponseti technique into our institution significantly reduced the need for RSR in fixed clubfoot

Purpose of study. The results clinically & statistically of a 14 year longitudinal study comparing the traditional ‘stretch & strap’ method (1994-2002) with the Ponseti technique (2002-2008). Methods & Results. A 14 year prospective longitudinal comparative study was undertaken into management and outcome of CTEV. There were 114 feet (80 patients), 64 feet (45 patients) treated traditionally and 50 feet (35 Patients) with the Ponseti technique. Patient demographics, the Harold & Walker Classification, and associated risk factors for CTEV were analysed. If conservative treatment failed a radical sub-talar release operation (RSR) was undertaken. The incidence of fixed CTEV was 1.6 per 1000 live births with a male to female ratio of 2.8 to 1. Idiopathic CTEV was present in 77.5% of patients, (22.5% with a primary aetiology). Mean time to RSR was comparable: 37.43 weeks (CI: 33.65 to 41.21) and 46 weeks (CI: 39.18 to 52.82) for the traditional and Ponseti groups respectively. In the traditional group 65.6% (CI: 53.4 to 76.1%) of feet underwent RSR surgery compared to just 25.5% (CI: 15.8 to 38.3%) in the Ponseti group, When idiopathic CTEV was analysed separately these rates reduce to 56.5% (CI: 42.3 to 69.8%) and 15.8% (CI: 7.4 to 30.4%) respectively. The Relative Risk of requiring RSR surgery in traditional compared to Ponseti groups was 2.58 (CI: 1.59 to 4.19) for all patients and 3.58 (CI: 1.65 to 7.78) for idiopathic CTEV (statistically significant). The results of the Ponseti method improved with time suggesting a learning curve. Conclusion. In this study, the Ponseti technique has significantly reduced the need for RSR surgery in fixed CTEV

The advent of modular implants aims to minimise morbidity associated with revision of hemiarthroplasty or total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) to reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSR) by allowing retention of the humeral stem. This systematic review aimed to summarise outcomes following its use and reasons why modular humeral stems may be revised. A systematic review of Pubmed, Medline and EMBASE was performed according to PRISMA guidelines of all patients undergoing revision of a modular hemiarthroplasty or TSA to RSR. Primary implants, glenoid revisions, surgical technique and opinion based reports were excluded. Collected data included demographics, outcomes and incidence of complications. 277 patients were included, with a mean age of 69.8 years (44-91) and 119 being female. Revisions were performed an average of 30 months (6-147) after the index procedure, with the most common reason for revision being cuff failure in 57 patients. 165 patients underwent modular conversion and 112 underwent stem revision. Of those that underwent humeral stem revision, 18 had the stem too proximal, in 15 the stem was loose, 10 was due to infection and 1 stem had significant retroversion. After a mean follow up of 37.6 months (12-91), the Constant score improved from a mean of 21.8 to 48.7. Stem revision was associated with a higher complication rate (OR 3.13, 95% CI 1.82-5.39). The increased use of modular stems has reduced stem revision, however 40% of these implants still require revision due to intra-operative findings. Further large volume comparative studies between revised and maintained humeral stems post revision of modular implants can adequately inform implant innovation to further improve the stem revision rate

Introduction and Objective. Postoperative pain control in shoulder surgery is challenging even in arthroscopic procedures. Acute postoperative pain can last up to 48hrs despite using multimodal analgesia. Different techniques have been used to control acute pain following shoulder surgery. The most common technique currently used in shoulder surgery at the elective orthopaedic centre in Leeds is a combination of general anaesthetic (GA) and interscalene block (ISB). ISB maybe very effective, however, carries many risks and potential side effects such as brachial plexus injury and paralysis of the vagus and laryngeal recurrent nerves as well as cervical sympathetic nerve and pneumothorax. ISB can also be associated with higher incidence of neurological deficit compared to other peripheral nerve blocks; up to 14% at 10 days in some cases. As such we decided to examine the use of ISB for achieving pain control in our elective unit. Materials and Methods. A prospective consecutive series of 217 patients undergoing shoulder surgery were studied. These were grouped into 10 groups. All procedures were arthroscopic apart from shoulder arthroplasty procedures such as hemiarthroplasty and total shoulder replacements (TSRs). The choice of regional anaesthesia was ISB with GA as standard practice. Visual analogue scores (VAS) at 0hrs, 1hr, 2hrs, 4hrs and 6hrs; and total opiates intake were recorded. A one-way single factor ANOVA was used as preferred statistical analytical method to determine whether there is a difference in VAS scores and total opiates intake amongst the groups. Postoperative analgesics were used for pain relief, although these were not standardised. Results. In total shoulder replacement group, although the RSR group used more morphine on average compared to the ASR group (Mean morphine intake 6.5mg vs 3mg), this was not statistically significant (F<Fcrit; p value= 0.19). When comparing all the arthroplasty groups, the difference in mean morphine intake was also statistically not significant (F<Fcrit; p value=0.24). However, when comparing all 10 groups’ morphine intake there was a statistically significant difference amongst these groups (F>F crit; p value=0.03). Interestingly, there was a statistically significant difference in VAS at 0hrs (F>Fcrit p value=0.01); 1hrs (F>Fcrit; p value=0.00), and at 6hrs (F>Fcrit; p value=0.02) when comparing all 10 groups. Conclusions. ISB is an effective technique in achieving pain control in shoulder surgery; however, there are still variations in analgesic needs amongst groups and the use of alternative techniques should be thus explored. A future prospective study looking at acute pain for a longer period of time after shoulder surgery would explore the effectiveness of ISB in achieving pain control consistent with rehabilitation requirements

The December 2012 Shoulder & Elbow Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: whether allograft is biomechanically superior in large Hill-Sachs defects; glenoid bone loss in shoulder dislocators; repairing irreparable cuff tears; acromioclavicular joint injuries; whether more radiographs equals more surgery; whether reverse TSR is cheaper than hemiarthroplasty; autologous chondrocyte implantation in the shoulder; and fracture of the clavicle.